Is the globe cooling?

Recently, one has been hearing statements in the media like, the "twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming" and the Earth has been cooling since 1998. Let's take a look at the validity of these statements. The warmest year on record, according to both NASA and NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), was 2005. However, 1998 was virtually tied with 2005 for warmth, and the United Kingdom Hadley Center and Climatic Research Unit data set (HadCRU) rates 1998 as the warmest year on record. The three data sets use different methods, such as how they interpolate over missing data regions over the Arctic Ocean, and so they arrive at slightly different numbers for the the global average temperature. All three data sets are considered equally valid, so ignoring two of the three major data sets to claim that the globe has been cooling since 1998 is "cherry picking" the data to show the result you want.

Furthermore, 1997-1998 El Niño event was the second strongest of the past century. El Niño events directly warm a large part of the Pacific, and indirectly warm (via a large increase in water vapor), an even larger region. This extra warming--estimated to have boosted the global temperature an extra 0.1-0.2°C--made 1998's warmth spike sharply upwards from the globe's usual temperature. The climate is best measured by a multi-year average of global temperatures, in order to remove shorter-term oscillations in weather patterns like El Niño. It is not scientifically valid to base a cooling argument on a year that spiked sharply upwards from the norm because of one the largest El Niño events in recorded history. A valid way to measure whether the globe is warming or cooling is to use the average global temperature for the past ten years or longer. The 1999-2008 period was significantly warmer (by 0.18°C, according to NOAA) than the previous ten year period, despite the fact the record (or near-record) warmest year 1998 was part of this previous period. Thus, it is scientifically correct to say the globe has been warming since 1998, not cooling. This warming rate has been about 0.16°C per decade over the past thirty years. Note that even over time periods as long as eight years, the average global temperature is not always a good measure of the long-term global warming trend--particularly if a large volcanic eruption in the tropics occurs.

How often should we expect to see a new global temperature record?The climate should warm at a rate of about 0.19°C (0.34°F) per decade, according to the computer climate models used to formulate the "official word" on climate, the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Thus, we should expect to see frequent "warmest years on record". However, 2006, 2007, and 2008 were all cooler than 2005, and 2008 was merely the ninth warmest year on record. We know that the weather has a high degree of natural variability, with warmer than average years mixed in with cooler ones. How often, then, should we expect to set a new global temperature record if the climate is warming in accordance with global warming theory?

Figure 1. Predicted and observed global annual average temperatures between 1990-2008. The thin colored lines represent 55 individual runs of the twenty computer climate models used to formulate the 2007 IPCC report. These runs were done for the A1B "business as usual" scenario, which most closely matches recent emissions. The thick black line is the multi-model mean, and the thick colored lines with symbols denote actual observations, as computed by the three major research groups that estimate annual global temperatures. The sharp down spike in 1991-1992 is due to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, which cooled the Earth for two years. You can make these type of plots yourself, using the publicly available PCMDI IPCC AR4 archive. Image credit: Dr. Gavin Schmidt, realclimate.org.

The twenty models used to formulate the 2007 IPCC report (Figure 1) all predict the climate will warm, but with a lot of year-to-year variability due to natural weather patterns such as El Niño. Some of the IPCC models forecast periods lasting many years (in the extreme case, twenty years) with no global warming, due to natural climate and weather oscillations. If one plots up the cumulative distribution of these IPCC model runs to see how often a global average temperature record should be broken (Figure 2), one sees that the models predict a 50% chance that we'll unambiguously break the record every six years. By an unambiguous record, I mean a record that exceeds the previous one by at least 0.1°C. We've now gone ten years without unambiguously breaking the global temperature record, which the models say should happen 25% of the time. There is a 5% chance we'll go eighteen years without unambiguously breaking the record, so it is quite possible for natural variability in the climate system to obscure the global warming signal for periods of nearly twenty years. If we still haven't had a new global temperature record by 2018, then it is time to question global warming theory. If the theory is correct, there is a good chance that we will break the global temperature record during the next year that has a moderate or stonger El Niño event (and no major volcanic eruption in the tropics, since such major eruptions can dramatically cool the climate). Since we have La Niña conditions to start 2009, it is unlikely this year will break the record.

Figure 2. Cumulative distribution of how long one would have to wait for a new global temperature record to be set between the years 1990 and 2030. Image is based on the twenty climate models used to formulate the 2007 IPCC report, using the A1B "business as usual" scenario. The curves should be read as the percentage chance of seeing a new record (Y axis) if you waited the number of years on the X axis. The two curves are for a new record of any size (black) and for an unambiguous record (> 0.1°C above the previous record, red). The 95% confidence line is marked in gray. The main result is that 95% of the time, a new record will be seen within 8 years, but that for an unambiguous record, you need to wait for 18 years to have similar confidence. Image credit: Realclimate.org.

Is global warming slowing down?The global average temperature has declined over the past three years (Figure 1) and global average sea surface temperature (SST) has not increased over the past seven years (Figure 3). Is global warming slowing down, then, and taking a break? That was the theory advanced by a group of German climate modelers (Keenlyside et al., 2008) in the journal Nature in 2008. Using a climate model that offered a unique way to handle the initial distribution of SSTs, they concluded that over the next ten years, natural variations in the climate may temporarily mask the global warming due to greenhouse gases. They stated: "North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming". However, they go on to state that greenhouse-gas driven global warming will resume full-force after the ten-year break is over. Other climate modelers disagree with this predicted "break" in global warming. Both theories are reasonable ones, and it is possible that the recent cool years portend the ten-year "break" from global warming hypothesized by Keenlyside et al. It is too early to tell, since the relative coolness of the past few years could easily be natural "noise" (weather) imposed on the long-term global warming trend. The fact that we've had a cold winter in eastern North America and in the UK--or any other anecdotal cold or snow-related record you may hear about--can't tell us whether global warming may be slowing down or not. The amount of global warming over the past century has only been about 1.3°F (0.74°C). Thus, it should not surprise us, for example, if temperatures during tonight's hard freeze in Florida bottom out at 25°F, instead of the 24°F it would have reached 100 years ago. The long-term ten and thirty year trends in global temperature are solidly upwards in accordance with global warming theory, and claims that the globe is cooling cannot be scientifically defended.

Figure 3. Global average sea surface temperatures (SSTs) from 1990-2008. SSTs have not increased in the past seven years. Image credit: NASA/GISS.

WE HAVE HAD A WARM WINTER IN SOUTH TEXAS. MIND YOU, WE ARE USUALLY MUCH COLDER THAN FLORIDA IS.... WE HAVE HAD MORNINGS BELOW ZERO TWO TIMES. IN 1949 AND 1899. HOWEVER THIS YEAR, JANUARY WAS 5 DEGREES ABOVE NORMAL, AND EVERYDAY WAS IN THE 60;S AND 70;S OR EVEN 80S! THE ONLY THING THAT SAVED US WERE THE NIGHTS, WHICH WERE ABOUT NORMAL.... OUR NORMAL HIGH TEMPERATURE WAS ALMOST 10 DEGREES ABOVE NORMAL. WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR WINTER IN SOUTH TEXAS....

So far 41 bloggers have been to my blog and participated in the poll....this first number in bold is the number of votes followed by the percent!!

Answer Text Votes % 1) There are changes in the atmosphere, including added CO2 from human activities, but significant climate effects are likely to be all within natural limits. 11 26.83%2) Any recent warming is most likely natural. Human input of CO2 has very little to do with it. Solar, naturally varying water vapor, and similar variables can explain most or all of the climate changes. 8 19.51%3) The scientific basis for human impacts on climate is well represented by the IPCC WG1 report. The lead scientists know what they are doing. We are warming the planet, with CO2 as the main culprit. 7 17.07%4) There is warming and the human addition of CO2 causes some of it, but the science is too uncertain to be confident about current attributions of the precise role of CO2! 6 14.63%5) I really don't care! 4 9.76%6) There is no warming; it is a fabrication based on inaccurate/inappropriate measurement. Human activity is not having any significant effect on Climate. 2 4.88%7) The IPCC WG1 is compromised by political intervention; I agree with those scientists who say that the IPCC WG1 is underestimating the problem. 2 4.88%8) The IPCC WG1 seriously understates the human influence on climate. I agree with those scientists who say that major mitigation responses are needed immediately to prevent catastrophic serious warming! 1 2.44%

Abstract (approved December 29, 2008 )It is widely accepted, based on data from the last few decades and on model simulations, that anthropogenic climate change will cause increased fire activity. However, less attention has been paid to the relationship between abrupt climate changes and heightened fire activity in the paleorecord. We use 35 charcoal and pollen records to assess how fire regimes in North America changed during the last glacial–interglacial transition (15 to 10 ka), a time of large and rapid climate changes. We also test the hypothesis that a comet impact initiated continental-scale wildfires at 12.9 ka; the data do not support this idea, nor are continent-wide fires indicated at any time during deglaciation. There are, however, clear links between large climate changes and fire activity. Biomass burning gradually increased from the glacial period to the beginning of the Younger Dryas. Although there are changes in biomass burning during the Younger Dryas, there is no systematic trend. There is a further increase in biomass burning after the Younger Dryas. Intervals of rapid climate change at 13.9, 13.2, and 11.7 ka are marked by large increases in fire activity. The timing of changes in fire is not coincident with changes in human population density or the timing of the extinction of the megafauna. Although these factors could have contributed to fire-regime changes at individual sites or at specific times, the charcoal data indicate an important role for climate, and particularly rapid climate change, in determining broad-scale levels of fire activity.

Quoting mbailey:I never post here and will probably get banned for this one but, I don't think any pragmatic, enlightened person would deny relatively recent elevations in recorded temperatures. Yes, we are currently experiencing a drought. Flora and fauna are being affected all over the globe, this is undeniable. Now then, since those records have been kept for perhaps o.ooooooooooooooooo1 percent of the perceived existence of Earth as we know it, how can any pragmatic, enlightened person reasonably conclude that human activity caused the few degree shift? Human life is but a passing vapor upon this orb of ages that formed and will evaporate like the morning dew. We are full of ourselves to think we are so influential.

img src="" alt="" />

Agreed!

Is the globe cooling?

Does a cat...Does a fat baby...Does a wild bear...you betcha!

And, if it was warming, it wouldn't be because of man's pathetic efforts to destroy himself! Ol' Mother Earth's been here quite awhile beforehand and endured more that its measly infestations! ;P

I'm confused....i grew up in Indiana and my momma still lives there.....so where the Hell am i at now......Just spoke to a guy that got off a plane from Denver Col. and he said this is Tampa correct.....Its 41 in Denver and 39 in Tampa.......again what the Hell......LOL

""All three data sets are considered equally valid, so ignoring two of the three major data sets to claim that the globe has been cooling since 1998 is "cherry picking" the data to show the result you want.""

That is interesting, I doubt you would say that if 2 of the three said global warming was obvious...

Also the vary models that are used are so flawed it is just silly, it comes down to more of a RELIGION than a SCIENCE

I haven't taken a stand on either side of the Global Warming/Global Climate Change debate. However, I do believe that folks have grossly underestimated the impact of solar and volcanic activity on the operational dynamics of the climate. Last year, I saw a report by scientist in Chili who said a three week eruption of a volcano there unleashed more pollution and carbon dioxide than the United States does in a year. Almost every day it seems like new active undersea volcanoes are being discovered- far more than scientist ever imagined only a few years ago.

Now, today, scientists have stated a theory that a volcano in Siberia was responsible for the downfall of the dinosaurs 250 million years ago and altered the carbon mix on earth for 200,000 years.

Anyway, the story is cited below and a part of it is posted here.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/02/04/volcano-mass-extinction.html

An ancient killer is hiding in the remote forests of Siberia. Walled off from western eyes during the Soviet era and forgotten among the endless expanse of wilderness, scientists are starting to uncover the remnants of a supervolcano that rained Hell on Earth 250 million years ago and killed 90 percent of all life.

Researchers have known about the volcano -- the Siberian Traps, for years. And they've speculated that the volcanic rocks, which cover an area about the size of Alaska, played a role in runaway global warming that led to the end -- Permian mass extinction, the worst dying the planet has ever seen.

Now a team of researchers led by Henrik Svenson of the University of Oslo in Norway have performed a series of experiments, showing the volcano employed an arsenal of deadly weapons during its 200,000-year-long assault on the biosphere. Prime among them was carbon. Searing magmas from the volcano intruded into the Tunguska Basin in eastern Siberia, a region laden with thick deposits of coal, oil and gas. Heat from the molten rock baked the hydrocarbons, turning the area into the world's largest fossil fuel-burning plant. In all, the volcano may have belched as much as 100,000 gigatons of carbon into the air (all of humanity emits about eight gigatons of carbon annually).

That's more than enough to cause a global climate apocalypse. But the team also wanted to know what happened when lava infiltrated the area's abundant salt deposits. When heated in a laboratory to 275 degrees Centigrade (527 degrees Fahrenheit), the salts released a host of toxic gases, chief among them methyl chloride, an efficient ozone-killer.

"This is the first geologically realistic evidence that ozone collapse during the end-Permian could have actually happened," Svenson said.

Quoting Orcasystems:ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for apulse?WITNESS: No.ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?WITNESS: No.ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?WITNESS: No.ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you beganthe autopsy?WITNESS: No.ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been aliveand practicing law.

33.7F and dropping (tonight/early morning forecast to be lower 20's with wind chill as low as 9F). I have my heater full blast and it is 61F in here, will only get colder so it is time to open the faucets and crawl under the covers.

Quoting Orcasystems:ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for apulse?WITNESS: No.ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?WITNESS: No.ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?WITNESS: No.ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you beganthe autopsy?WITNESS: No.ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been aliveand practicing law.

164 -- Yes -- you expressed it correctly and far better then I. It's time to have eyes wide open and prepare.... we may have one heck of a roller coaster ride ahead of us.LowerCal has some fascinating picture to look at -- and great astronomy made simple -- kinda fun to check out his site then go walk the the dog and figure it all out.

Also been following Redoubt -- which has the strangest name for a volcano ever.... thankfully she's still sleeping...but passing a rumble from her lower end

I never post here and will probably get banned for this one but, I don't think any pragmatic, enlightened person would deny relatively recent elevations in recorded temperatures. Yes, we are currently experiencing a drought. Flora and fauna are being affected all over the globe, this is undeniable. Now then, since those records have been kept for perhaps o.ooooooooooooooooo1 percent of the perceived existence of Earth as we know it, how can any pragmatic, enlightened person reasonably conclude that human activity caused the few degree shift? Human life is but a passing vapor upon this orb of ages that formed and will evaporate like the morning dew. We are full of ourselves to think we are so influential.

Surfmom~ they are one evil empire.. They are buying & shelving to limit our choice of strains. They didn't buy the seed from out under the farm store though. That big FL freeze, CA is putting all the water they got to hope & save the food trees, they lost a veggie crop & didn't replant the next. They are so dry they have less than 40% of their water to work with.. TX is so dry they are slaughtering most the cows. Not to mention what all happened last summer. It doesn't look to good.

It is amazing how the numbers work out...they do have an estimate of how much we are hurting ourselves with types of air pollution. This is the sortta stuff that should be looked at when deciding what to do. & there's another reason we shouldn't burn corn for fuel & another + for switch grass.

Climate change and health costs of air emissions from biofuels and gasolineAbstractEnvironmental impacts of energy use can impose large costs on society. We quantify and monetize the life-cycle climate-change and health effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions from gasoline, corn ethanol, and cellulosic ethanol. For each billion ethanol-equivalent gallons of fuel produced and combusted in the US, the combined climate-change and health costs are $469 million for gasoline, $472–952 million for corn ethanol depending on biorefinery heat source (natural gas, corn stover, or coal) and technology, but only $123–208 million for cellulosic ethanol depending on feedstock (prairie biomass, Miscanthus, corn stover, or switchgrass). Moreover, a geographically explicit life-cycle analysis that tracks PM2.5 emissions and exposure relative to U.S. population shows regional shifts in health costs dependent on fuel production systems. Because cellulosic ethanol can offer health benefits from PM2.5 reduction that are of comparable importance to its climate-change benefits from GHG reduction, a shift from gasoline to cellulosic ethanol has greater advantages than previously recognized. These advantages are critically dependent on the source of land used to produce biomass for biofuels, on the magnitude of any indirect land use that may result, and on other as yet unmeasured environmental impacts of biofuels.

That warm spell screwed with my Mango Trees!!! They in appropriately bloomed and now I have two trees lost all their blossoms, are stressing from the cold and the juice they used to push out the baby blooms........... not good!

Whoooa Skye -- you stumbled on something spouse was suspecting would happen..... combination of weather and also..... MONSANTO!!!..... Monsanto has been busy buying up and controlling the amount of seeds available to the small farmers and folks like you and me. They're doing this to squeeze the small farmer and promote those big chemical orient mega corporate farms..... We had read about this in a magazine called ACRES USA.

Orca~ climate change is very much related to the weather, as is our pollutions effects in it's cycle. You say so we may not be there.. but what about those who want their greaty greats there? & I thought you were a weather geek..the research has taught us about our past to our poles, the satellites are unreal & it is happening now. To gain some understanding like we have with ENSO (yeah it's not perfect either) could help us emmensly to do some adapting.. It's here if you like it or not..

I went to the farm store today & just still blown away with how beautiful the coastal/bermuda hay is, I say~ "What, did that farmer you buy from freeze dry this hay or spray paint it green?" (cause it is winter & last cutting was back in beginning of Oct, so the hay should be about brown).. He says remember that warm spell a few weeks ago? He grew it then.. He said never in his 60something years has he saw a mid winter cutting like that. So I'm thinking, yeah short term this climate change may not be too raw here & then he ask if I got plenty of vegtable seeds? The truck that was just there only had 7 or 8 of the 45 lbs of seed he had ordered & the rest wasn't coming because of all the unexpected crop failures around the country. He had heard seed would be short, but he never thought by this much. He never thought it imaginable to be short so bad..cause that too has never been so short in his long life.

SWFL- Working outside, East of I75, in this cold was a challenge today - If I had enough clothes on to be warm I couldn't move around the horses, and when I de-layered, I was so cold I still couldn't move ...... Lots of HOT TEA and a chocolate bar from Canada helped.Cold Front WavesCouldn't imagine any SWFL surfer getting wet today... -- but there were a select few surfers with anti-freeze for blood that tackled: cold chunk waves in the chest high range. Tomorrow AM looks knee to waist and clean down south, really cold and low tide first thing then going flat. SE FL will have good surf tomorrow, warmer water and bigger waves over there.

Looks like the islands should see tropical storm force at worst if the forecast holds. Worrysome is the recent bit of disorganization. Looks like it may try & relocate which would throw the forecast. When this is to strengthen & turn south keeps getting push farther west, but I'd guess it would relocate a little to the south. Islands to Madagascar~ something to watch. The way the shear is dropping especially by reunion is a little worrysome for them.